Cato Policy Analysis No. 247 December 18, 1995

Policy Analysis

Privatizing Superfund: How To Clean Up Hazardous Waste

by James V. DeLong

James V. DeLong is a lawyer and an adjunct scholar of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.


Executive Summary

Superfund is not a program devoted to the protection of public health. It is an expensive mechanism for reclaiming a limited amount of land for general use. The number of par- cels of real estate covered by the law or otherwise need- ing remediation runs into the hundreds of thousands (though the level of contamination of the vast majority is probably minimal), yet federal policy is to clean up the 1,238 sites on the National Priorities List to operating-room standards and ignore the others.

The effort to justify that policy results in exaggera- tion of the risks to public health posed by Superfund sites. Those risks are trivial and could be contained at low cost. Furthermore, the effort to "make the polluter pay" has en- meshed over 32,000 people in a regime of injustice, waste, inefficiency, and bloated transactions costs and is discour- aging the redevelopment of properties.

The policy of concentrating on NPL sites ignores the arbitrary nature of the process by which sites are listed. There is no convincing evidence that those sites are signifi- cantly more threatening than are many non-NPL sites. The focus on the NPL also ignores the growing burden of private litigation, which is becoming an increasing drain on national economic resources and represents a significant reallocation of property rights.

The present law should be repealed and site remediation privatized so that decisions are made by market processes, not bureaucratic ones. Existing federal sites and abandoned sites should be auctioned off to private parties for either a positive or a negative price. The buyers should be obligated only to contain the contamination and prevent harm to public health. Whether a site is cleaned up for use or left idle should be determined by the market for the property.

Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 247 (HTML)

1995 The Cato Institute
Please send comments to webmaster